( 1 ) THESE two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common order recorded by Mr. Justice J. B. Mehta in Special Civil Application No. 952 of 1974 and Special Civil Application No. 1060 of 1974 The material facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 160 of 1977 areas follows:

( 2 ) SURVEY Nos. 226 and 121/3 of village Lathodara in Mangrol Taluka of Junagadh District were received by the original petitioner from Aba Jusab and Osman Suleman in exchange of his lands. The deed of exchange was executed on 27/12/1950. It was registered. Aba Jusab and Osman Suleman migrated to Pakistan. Therefore declaration that the lands in question were evacuee properties was made. It appears that nothing happened thereafter. In January 1971 Mamlatdar of Mangrol deputed an officer to take possession of the lands in question because after holding an enquiry the Collector had allotted the lands in question to one Tikabai Motumal who migrated from Pakistan to India and who had made a claim for compensation in respect of the properties which were left by her in Pakis- tan. Revision applications against these allotment orders were filed before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sec. 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954 Both of them were rejected. Therefore the petitioners filed these two writ petitions challenging the orders made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as well as the orders of allotment made by the Collector. The principal contention which was raised on behalf of the petitioners in the two petitions was that the lands in question belonged to them and that therefore they could not have been declared as evacuee properties. The learned single Judge who heard the petitions rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and dismissed both the petitions.

( 3 ) THOSE orders are challenged by the original petitioners in these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

( 4 ) THE first contention which Mr. Hathi has raised relates to the ma- intainability of these appeals. According to him the orders made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner were quasi judicial orders and that there- fore the writ petitions which were filed by the petitioners were in the nature of revisional applications under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Acc- ording to him therefore what the learned single Judge had done was to exercise revisional jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter in contro- versy. Therefore under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent no appeal could lie against the order of the learned single Judge because Clause 15 of the Letters Patent excepts appeals against orders made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The contention raised by Mr. Hathi is not well founded.

( 5 ) A quasi judicial order results from the decision of lis between two parties given by a disinterested third party. In the instant case there was no lis between the two parties which a third disinterested party had deci- ded. On 16/12/1971 Settlement Commissioner-cum-Collector Junagadh made an administrative order in respect of the lands in question under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954 In pursuance thereof an allotment order was made on 20/12/1971 by Managing Officer-cum-Mamlatdar Evacuee Properties Junagadh. Settlement Commissioner-cum-Collector and Managing Officer-cum- Mamlatdar were the persons who made the orders. Those orders were challenged before a higher administrative authority viz. Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is difficult to say under these circumstances that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was exercising the quasi judicial function of deciding lis between the two parties because there was no lis in the instant case. The Collector and the Mamlatdar had made administrative orders in the matter of evacuee properties and they were called in question- before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who was the administrative head of the Collector and the Mamlatdar. Therefore